Give up the ego for spiritual quotient

In today’s world, materialism and stress have become part of our lives. We are constantly looking for answers to how to live a successful and happy life. One way of finding out answers to this question is to explore the spiritual quotient (SQ) related to our ability to understand and comprehend the spiritual aspects of life, which, contrary to popular belief, are not necessarily connected to religion.

Danah Zohar, who teaches at the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme, Oxford University, and psychiatrist Dr Ian Marshall in their 2001 book, SQ: Connecting With Our Spiritual Intelligence, observe that “while computers have IQ and animals can have EQ, it is essentially an SQ that sets human beings apart”.

So, for the ‘wheel of life’ to roll smoothly, all the spokes of the wheel — IQ, EQ and SQ — have to be equally developed.

The journey from IQ to SQ represents moving from gross to subtle, finite to infinite, tangible to intangible. SQ has several dimensions: compassion, wholeness, self-esteem, gratitude, spirit of surrender and service and the ego. Handling the ego is a critical dimension.

It is very important to understand and handle the ego — both of oneself and others. But is there God in all this?

The Vedanta says he resides within us. By surrendering the ego, we will be able to perpetually experience spiritual actualisation, leading to a higher SQ. For, “we are not human beings having spiritual experience, but spiritual beings having human experience”.

When Sorry Isn’t Enough

One of life’s essential leadership skills is the art of the apology.  Part of being human is that we all make mistakes, say the wrong thing, and misread others.  We hurt people sometimes knowingly and sometimes not.

Some people have a difficult time saying, “I am sorry” while others are able to say it freely.

But is sorry enough?

• Ever hear the words “I am sorry” but it didn’t do it for you?
• Have you ever apologized to someone only to find that it almost fell flat?
• What if there was a specific language of apology that changed everything?

Gary Chapman is the author of the 5 Love Languages® series and director of Marriage and Family Life Consultants.  Jennifer Thomas is an author, speaker, and psychologist.  Their new book When Sorry Isn’t Enough taught me why “I am sorry” is often not good enough.  I recently had the opportunity to connect with Dr. Thomas and talk about the art of the apology, relationships, forgiveness and trust.

“

“Forgiveness holds the power to give renewed life to the relationship.” –Chapman / Thomas

• Tweet This
• Share on Facebook

Sorry Isn’t Always Enough

Why did you decide to research and study the apology?

Several years ago, I made a mistake that led to an argument with my husband. Ironically, this incident happened the evening before we were to teach about communication and forgiveness to a pre-marital class at our church.  As he and I worked through our own argument, I offered an apology to him that failed to hit the mark.  I was thinking to myself, “This is not good. We are barely speaking and yet we are supposed to teach together tomorrow.”

Normally, I might have been miffed by his response, but this time my curiosity took over and so I asked him what he would like to hear in my apology.  While I had been saying, “I’m sorry,” he needed to hear me say, “I was wrong.”  I hadmade a mistake, and I knew I was in the wrong, so I went ahead and said it to my husband.  I was amazed by how quickly this apology worked. My husband felt better, and the emotional tension between the two of us slipped away.

I made a mental note to include my husband’s favorite words in future apologies I would give to him.  I wondered if our experience might help other people who are in the “doghouse” and don’t know how to get out of there.

The Language of Apology

How did you connect your ideas with Dr. Chapman’s love languages?

I had met Gary Chapman locally through my work as a psychologist in private practice in North Carolina.  I was curious about his thoughts on apologies.  I thought to myself, “Just as you should show love in a language that really speaks to others, you should also speak apologies that contain the words they are waiting to hear.”  Six months later, I made an appointment to talk over these ideas with him.  Dr. Chapman was very encouraging, and we ended up writing a book together.

“

“Genuine apology opens the door to the possibility of forgiveness and reconciliation.” –Chapman / Thomas

• Tweet This
• Share on Facebook

If you are close to someone, it’s inevitable that you’ll need to apologize to them. How can you be prepared to speak their apology language?

Here are a couple of conversation starters that will help you be prepared when the need to apologize arises. Ask the people who are closest to you:

1. When you hear a great apology, what is included?
2. When you hear a lame apology, what is missing?

You can also click on my website’s “free resources” tab to take the apology language and love language assessments for free.

“

“Trust is that gut-level confidence that you will do what you say you will do.” –Chapman / Thomas

• Tweet This
• Share on Facebook

Why I Am Sorry is Hard to Say

Why is it hard for many of us to say, “I was wrong”?

This is often difficult because saying, “I was wrong,” means that you are accepting responsibility for the problem.  Some people don’t like to do this because it requires them to swallow their pride and admit wrongdoing.

Problems also arise when people feel that they are not solely to blame.  They might be willing to admit fault, but they want the other side to do that, as well.

I encourage people to say it when they know they were in the wrong and to do so without a requirement for the other side to give you the gift of an apology in return.

“

“Repentence begins with an expression of intent to change.” – Chapman / Thomas

• Tweet This
• Share on Facebook

What moves an apology into the “genuine” apology category?

Other writers have given “magic words” for a successful apology, but our book is different.  Our premise is that what one person considers to be a genuine apology is not what another person considers to be a strong apology.  In order to show your sincerity when you apologize, we say that you must use the particular phrase or “apology language” that the other person is waiting to hear.

Excuses

Many apologies include a “yes, but” statement as an excuse or a way to shift the blame back to others.  Why do many of us do this?

This is the biggest apology mistake I see.  Too often, people erase their feeble apologies by adding “BUT” and then passing along blame to others.  In order to give an outstanding apology, you should offer a sincere apology and then STOP while you are ahead.  If you feel you must offer something by way of explanation, don’t do it right then.  The chance is too great that your explanation will sound like a “BUT.”  Instead, wait at least 10 minutes before trying to explain yourself. If you think the other person will hear your explanation as casting blame on your part, try to head this off.  Say, “My apology still stands and I don’t want to detract from it.  There is another piece to this problem I also want to talk about.

“

“People respect the man and the woman who are willing to take responsibility for their own failures.” –Chapman / Thomas

Your research shows that 75 percent of couples differed in apology language. That is extraordinary.  What are the ramifications of this in relationships?

As a result of this difference, many couples will find that their apologies are not accepted.  This will lead to hurt feelings and frustration.  I want to see couples work out their differences by giving apologies that are likely to hit their mark.

Some people may use the apology as a manipulative tool.  How do you guard against this if someone really is just mastering a technique in your own language?

I believe that people who offer apologies are usually sincere.  The problem is that their efforts are being wasted on apologies that fall short.

Would anyone say that using the five love languages is too easy to manipulate?  In the same way, our five apology languages should be used by everyone who wants to tune into the needs of the people in their lives.

You say, “Forgiveness and trust are not to be equated.” Would you explain this a little and how you can rebuild trust with someone?

Apologies open the doorway to forgiveness.  The person who has been hurt may or may not choose to respond with forgiveness.  Sincere apologies make forgiveness more likely. Rebuilding trust takes some time. Usually, they will want to see if you have changed your ways. We know that, “Talk is cheap,” so they will be watching to see what you DO.

What’s your goal with this book?

We hope to reach people who are struggling with broken relationships.  For them, it can feel like apologies don’t work.  We offer hope that more targeted apologies will show your sincerity and will restore damaged ties.

What are you currently reading?

I gave up reading two years ago.  Well, to clarify that, I switched over to audiobooks on my cell phone.  I wanted to find more time to exercise, and I rarely have time to sit still and read so I gave up sitting still while reading.  I’m especially fond of listening to books while I’m at the beach-lots of time to watch the water and keep an eye on my kids while having someone else read the book through my earbuds.

6 things I learned from riding in a Google Self-driving Car

Last week, a friend and I got a sneak peek at Google's new self-driving cars. In addition to spending an afternoon cheating on myIntergalactic SpaceBoat of Light and Wonder, I got to chat with the engineers about the project.

1. Human beings are terrible drivers.

We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s "moonshots" -- to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.

2. Google self-driving cars are timid.

The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It struck me as cautious. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. Google can adjust the level of aggression in the software, and the self-driving prototypes currently tooling around Mountain View are throttled to act like nervous student drivers. 

In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these aggression tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes and roaring engines and terrified interns. Although impractical on the open road, part of me wishes I could have experienced that version as well. 

3. They're cute.

Google's new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. Psychological studies have been done whereby participants, when asked to harm an inanimate object, were less likely to hurt the object if it had a face. Participants in the study would happily bludgeon a potato with a hammer, unless you stuck some hair and a pair of eyeballs to the potato, at which point their moral compasses would obediently snap into place. 

By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They're intended as moderate-distance couriers, not open-road warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.

 
Google's next generation of self-driving cars are your Marshmallow Overlords.

4. It’s not done and it’s not perfect.

Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the scenarios human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light (do you brake suddenly, or floor it and run the light?). At one point during the trip, we were attempting to make a right turn onto a busy road. Everyone’s attention was directed to the left, waiting for an opening. When the road cleared and it was safe to turn right, the car didn’t budge. I thought this was a bug at first, but when I looked to my right there was a pedestrian standing very close to the curb, giving the awkward body language that he was planning on jaywalking. This was a very human interaction: the car was waiting for a further visual cue from the pedestrian to either stop or go, and the pedestrian waiting for a cue from the car. When the pedestrian didn’t move, the self-driving car gracefully took the lead, merged, and entered the roadway. 

Freaky. 

 

The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. The radar is interesting because it allows the car to see through objects, rather than relying on line-of-sight. At one point during our drive the car recognized and halted for a cyclist who was concealed behind a row of hedges. 

Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren't ready for the real world. They can't drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there's a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping with enough logged miles and data, eventually the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.

5. I want this technology to succeed, like … yesterday.

I'm biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she'll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. 

When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask a lot of superficial questions: how much will these cars cost? Is this supposed to replace my car at home? Is this supposed to replace taxis or Uber? What if I need to use a drive-thru? 

They ignore the smarter questions. They ignore the fact that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore the fact that 95% of a car's lifetime is spent parked.They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don't think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. 

They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture staring them right in the face: that this technology could make our lives so much better.

6. It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that's a good thing.

Riding in a self-driving car is not the white-knuckled, cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade.

The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. 
It’s going to suck.

But I say to hell with the public. Let them spend their waking lives putt-putting around on a crowded interstate with all the other half-lucid orangutans on their cell phones. 

I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and each car now collectively possesses 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy. 

I say ignore the anecdotes, embrace the data. 

I’m ready for our army of Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots. 

I'm ready for the future. I'm ready for the marshmallows.